News Details

The growing concern among practitioners – such as myself – who are deeply engaged in cross-border disputes, is that international arbitration has increasingly become a lengthy and costly process – marked by extensive document exchanges, mounting expenses, and frustrating delays. In response to these challenges and with the aim of offering an alternative procedural framework on the international scene, the Prague Rules were introduced in 2018. These guidelines present a practical and effective response to the adversarial practices borrowed from US and UK trial traditions that have come to dominate arbitral proceedings. By enabling arbitral tribunals to take a more active role from the outset, the Prague Rules promote efficiency without replicating the formalities of courtroom litigation. For those who share concerns about arbitration’s growing alignment with common law approaches, the Prague Rules offer a compelling framework worth considering in the management of future international disputes.

Throughout my career, I have witnessed how international arbitration has experienced a gradual “Americanisation” and “Anglicisation” of arbitration, where extensive discovery and party-driven confrontations often overshadow more direct and efficient methods of resolution. This evolution has not only increased expenses but also undermined arbitration’s promise of being a swift and flexible alternative to court litigation. The Prague Rules respond to this trend by drawing on the civil law principle of tribunal-directed proceedings, restoring balance and efficiency to the arbitral process. By encouraging a more streamlined and pragmatic approach, they align arbitration with the needs of a commercial environment that prioritises results over extended formalities. Whether you practise within civil law jurisdictions or in broader international contexts, the Prague Rules offer a clear and compelling framework for dispute resolution in 2025 and beyond.

Origins: Responding to Arbitration’s Efficiency Challenges

The development of the Prague Rules originated from a recognised need that had been building within the international arbitration community for many years. In the 2010s, arbitration faced mounting criticism for increasingly resembling court litigation – marked by extensive document production spanning thousands of pages, detailed cross-examinations for days, and tribunals often adopting a passive role while parties drove the process forward. This trend, compounded by “due process paranoia” and fears of award challenges under national laws such as those in France, Switzerland, or jurisdictions following the UNCITRAL Model Law, contributed to longer timelines and inflated costs. Like many civil law practitioners, I voice concern that the growing dominance of US and UK common law practices are undermining arbitration’s procedural efficiency and leaving civil law parties at a disadvantage.

A working group of arbitrators and counsels, primarily from civil law jurisdictions across Europe, Russia, and other regions, addressed these concerns with a focused and collaborative effort. The initiative gained momentum during key discussions at the 2017 Russian Arbitration Association conference, which openly addressed the “creeping Americanisation” of arbitration and advocated a return to principled efficiency. Through successive drafts and consultations, these discussions matured into a coherent framework. Hence, on 14 December 2018 in Prague – a city symbolising Central Europe’s legal heritage – the “Rules on the Efficient Conduct of Proceedings in International Arbitration” were formally introduced. Conceived as voluntary “soft law”, the Prague Rules allow parties to incorporate them into arbitration agreements or adopt them during ongoing proceedings, offering a level of procedural flexibility that institutional rules often lack.

In my personal view, a central strength of the Prague Rules lies in their emphasis on early and active tribunal involvement, which helps prevent procedural inefficiencies from taking hold at the outset of a dispute. From my professional experience advising clients on drafting clauses, incorporating reference to the Prague Rules in arbitration clauses indicates a commitment to effective and disciplined dispute resolution – an approach that aligns well with parties in Continental Europe, Asia, and Latin America where civil law practices are dominant. For these practitioners, the Rules offer a structured yet flexile framework that mitigates the unpredictability often associated with more adversarial and party-driven proceedings.

Core Provisions: Mechanisms for Tribunal-Guided Proceedings

The Prague Rules incorporate a series of provisions that assign greater procedural responsibility to the tribunal, reflecting the principles with civil law practice. The key elements, outlined below, are particularly effective in empowering arbitrators to manage proceedings decisively while maintaining procedural fairness.

1. Early case management provides structure from the beginning and is, in my view, one of the rules’ strongest innovations. An initial conference is held promptly after the tribunal receives the file (Article 2.1), followed by a detailed session to outline the case: the relief sought, agreed facts, disputed issues, and legal positions (Article 2.2). The tribunal identifies necessary evidence, suggests ways to obtain it – such as through targeted witness summonses or document requests – and offers initial views on the burden of proof, viability of claims, and evidential weight (Article 2.4). These views are protected from challenges alleging bias (Article 2.4), allowing guidance without procedural complications. This process reflects civil law’s method of defining issues early, avoiding the expansion typical in adversarial settings where parties might introduce tangential arguments late in the day.

• Evidentiary procedures follow an inquisitorial model that I have found invaluable in practice. Tribunals may request specific documents or witnesses on their own initiative (Article 3) and apply iura novit curia, raising relevant legal principles not advanced by the parties, with an opportunity for response (Article 7). This provision respects party autonomy while preventing oversights that could prolong hearings. Document production is limited: there is no default broad disclosure; requests must show clear necessity and are reviewed by the tribunal for targeted items (Articles 4.2–4.3). Non-production may lead to adverse inferences (Article 10), reducing the extensive discovery common in US/UK practice – which, in my cases, has often doubled costs without proportional benefit.

• Witness and expert evidence are handled with equal efficiency. Initial submissions include brief summaries of witness relevance (Article 5.1), allowing the tribunal to determine which require full statements or examination (Articles 5.2–5.8). This selective approach contrasts sharply with the mandatory full statements under other rules, saving time and resources. For experts, joint commissions are encouraged: parties and the tribunal agree on scope, producing a single report on points of agreement and difference, with limited additional input (Article 6). In disputes involving technical matters, such as construction or energy contracts, this has proven especially useful in my experience, as it fosters consensus early and minimises partisan expert clashes.

• Hearings are designed for brevity, with provisions for decisions on documents alone, time limits, or remote participation (Article 8) – options that gained even greater relevance post-pandemic. Tribunals may assist with settlements at any point, with agreement, and may act as mediators (Article 9), blending arbitration with conciliation in a way that civil law systems have long embraced. Costs are allocated based on conduct (Article 11), incentivising cooperation, and deliberations commence before hearings to support timely awards (Article 12). These elements ensure that efficiency remains central to the process, often resolving cases in months rather than years.

Comparison with the IBA Rules

To provide a comprehensive assessment of the Prague Rules, it is helpful to compare them with the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration (1999, revised 2020), which remain widely used in many international arbitration proceedings. The IBA Rules incorporate elements of both civil and common law systems. However, they favour a party-driven approach: document requests are managed through Redfern schedules (Article 3), witness statements are comprehensive and detailed (Article 4), and experts are typically appointed by each side (Article 5). While these provide structure, they can lead to protracted negotiations over scope and objections.

In contrast, the Prague Rules shift emphasis to tribunal oversight, eliminating automatic wide disclosure and focusing on specific, supervised requests to control costs. Witnesses provide summaries rather than full statements, and experts are addressed through collaborative processes that prioritise joint reports. The IBA’s detailed procedures for objections are replaced by tribunal discretion, which helps address concerns over procedural fairness without unnecessary formality.

In my personal view, the two sets of rules complement each other. For instance, it is possible to apply the IBA rules to evidence in complex, fact-heavy cases while using Prague Rules for overall management and case narrowing. Nonetheless, the Prague Rules may be favoured for their alignment with civil law efficiency and their avoidance of imported adversarial elements that often complicate simpler disputes.

Influence Since 2018: Practical Adoption and Evolving Acceptance

Since their introduction, the Prague Rules have prompted considerable discussion and use, particularly in civil law regions such as Eastern Europe, Asia, and Latin America. Although the private nature of arbitration limits comprehensive data, feedback from practitioners and events – including GAR Dubai Arbitration Week (2020), recent GAR-LCIA discussions, and surveys by bodies like the ICC – indicates increasing application in managing expert evidence, timelines, and overall costs.

In practice, the Prague Rules have contributed to shorter proceedings by directing tribunals to core issues early; In cases I have managed, proceedings have concluded 30-50% faster when the Rules were referenced. References in awards further confirm their acceptance, with tribunals citing the Rules to justify proactive steps. Some commentators may raise concerns about due process if tribunals act too decisively, but experience – and decisions from courts like the Swiss Federal Tribunal – suggests that the Rules provide greater flexibility, especially in disputes where cost control is essential, such as mid-sized commercial claims. In 2025, alongside developments such as the UK’s updated Arbitration Act and ongoing UNCITRAL Working Group III deliberations, the Prague Rules continue to inform the development of procedural options in arbitration, influencing even institutional rules like those of the SCC and DIS.

Why I and Other Civil Law Practitioners Favour the Prague Rules

For practitioners from civil law systems like mine, the Prague Rules closely align with established approaches consistently deliver results. Provisions for tribunal-led evidence gathering (Article 3), issue definition (Article 2), and expert management (Article 6) reflect our preference for judicial direction over party control, ensuring disputes remain manageable. Restricted document production avoids unstructured searches that yield marginal value, and initial tribunal views offer useful orientation without implying prejudgment. They make arbitration a more familiar and balanced forum, particularly for disputes between civil law parties seeking to limit common law influences – think joint ventures between French, German, and Italian firms, where cultural procedural alignment matters.

In my experience, clients value such predictability: it reduces the learning curve for in-house teams and aligns with their domestic litigation experiences, building trust in the process.

Looking Forward: Procedural Choice in a Dynamic Landscape

As arbitration adapts to technological developments – such as AI-assisted document review and virtual hearings – sustainability considerations, and global challenges such as supply chain disruptions, the Prague Rules demonstrate the value of procedural choice. They encourage parties to tailor processes to their specific needs, rather than relying on one-size-fits-all models. Endorsements from experienced practitioners and leading figures and institutions, underscore their continued relevance and position the Rules as a last tool for modern arbitration.

At Habib Al Mulla and Partners, we leverage such tools to provide focused, client-centric representation. We have successfully applied the Prague Rules in a range of matters – from energy arbitrations to shareholder disputes – achieving outcomes that balance efficiency and fairness. If the Prague Rules are of interest, we invite you to contact us. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss how they can support effective strategies in your disputes, whether through clause drafting, tribunal advocacy, or procedural design.